Holy crap, I’m about to defend the New York Times. For real. I’ve not gone crazy; the paper is still a liberal rag, and I don’t usually waste my time with it. But the trans cult is blasting the Times right now, and that being the case, the paper must be doing something right.
And it appears that it is. According to a recent letter posted to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) website, the New York Times is guilty of “irresponsible, biased coverage of transgender people.”
This letter was signed mostly by LGBTQ groups nationwide. A few woke Hollywood celebrities also signed it, like Lena Duhnam, Judd Apatow, and Margaret Cho. They never pass up the opportunity to virtue signal their support for the fad that’s becoming a multi-billion dollar industry by chopping off female breasts and male genitals and pretending it’s not a mental illness.
Related: Trans Activists Don’t Understand Heterosexuality
I’d say “each to his own” if the cult wasn’t targeting children or expecting the rest of us to use their “preferred pronouns” and pretend Richard “Rachel” Levine is a woman and Ellen “Eliot” Page is a man. But I digress.
According to the GLAAD letter, the New York Times dedicates “so many resources and pages to platforming the voices of extremist anti-LGBTQ activists who have built their careers on denigrating and dehumanizing LGBTQ people, especially transgender people.”
The New York Times‘ crime, they say, is publishing stories “undermining support for transgender youth by writing ‘just asking questions’ stories about medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare.”
One example is a November 2022 article. “They Paused Puberty, but Is There a Cost?” the paper dared to ask in the headline. The subhead noted, “Puberty blockers can ease transgender youths’ anguish and buy time to weigh options. But concerns are growing about long-term physical effects and other consequences.”
The article goes into detail about the side effects of puberty blockers, and I can’t help but be amazed that the New York Times even went there. It cited scientific studies and quoted or referenced doctors in both the pro and con positions. This is what the trans cult called biased coverage? Really?
On Thursday, the Times published an op-ed titled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling.” This was really edgy for the paper, considering that Rowling is persona non grata for her views on transgenderism.
And last June, the paper published an article that dared to mention the adverse side effects of hormone treatments in young people, including infertility and loss of bone density. Radical trans activists weren’t happy about it.
But those articles don’t represent the only side the New York Times has presented. A look at the paper’s articles on transgender issues shows overwhelmingly pro-transgender content.
So, what’s the problem? It’s not that the Times is guilty of biased coverage of the transgender issue; it’s that it’s actually presenting somewhat balanced coverage. And the transgender fascists don’t want both sides presented. They don’t want people asking questions about whether or not it’s okay to pump little kids full of dangerous, experimental drugs and chop off healthy body parts. There will be no discussion. There will be no debate.
For once, the paper is actually doing its job, presenting both sides of the issue, and the trans cult can’t have that. How dare we look at the science and ask, “Is this right?”
Will the New York Times cave? Probably. I hope not, but now that GLAAD has gone nuclear, with the support of dozens of groups, influencers, and celebrities behind them, I wouldn’t be surprised to see articles challenging the transgender narrative disappear from the Times.
